HKSAR v. LAM CHIU LAU

DCCC 136/2016

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 136 OF 2016

----------------------

----------------------

---------------------

Reasons for Sentence

---------------------

1.  The defendant has pleaded guilty to one count of wounding with intent, contrary to section 17(a) of the Offences Against the Person Ordinance, Cap 212.

2.  The facts are as follows.  The defendant was married, and his wife had moved into a shelter in about November 2015.  The reason that his wife moved out of the matrimonial home was because she was a victim of domestic violence.  Obviously, under such circumstances, the shelter’s address would be a secret.   

3.  In December 2015, the defendant wanted to locate her whereabouts.  He asked members of her family who refused to reveal the address to him.  Specifically, he asked his wife’s sister and the sister’s daughter, effectively the defendant’s niece who was 25 years old. 

4.  Not long after, on 5 January 2016, the defendant armed with a 12-inch chopper waited for the niece in a housing estate in Tsing Yi.  He was waiting on the ground floor near an open car park.  He obviously saw the victim approach the car park, and what he did next was to take the chopper out of his jacket and attack her from behind.  He attacked her without warning.  The facts are that he struck her three times, on her forehead and her right forearm.  He pushed her to the ground which led her to obviously struggle and try to fend the defendant off.  Luckily, two passer-bys, two gentlemen helped the victim and subdued the defendant.  One of the men took the chopper off the defendant.  A police report was made and when the police arrived, the defendant admitted to the police that he had chopped the victim with his chopper.

5.  The victim suffered the following injuries.  She had four specific injuries, one to her forehead, two to her right palm and one to her right wrist.  In total, she had 10 stitches.  According to the victim herself, at the moment, to date, she still cannot extend her right ring finger, and her right little finger does not bend properly.  Clearly, those indicate she suffered some tendon injuries.  I have had sight of the chopper and photographs of the scene where the victim was attacked.    

6.  The defendant’s best mitigation is his plea of guilty today.  He is now 73 years old, and he is not a man with a clear record.  He has a total of nine previous convictions obtained over seven court appearances.  In 1982, the defendant was convicted of murder and two section 17 wounding offences.  He was sentenced to death.  That death sentence was later commuted to 37 years’ imprisonment.  That crime involved a chopper.  The defendant chopped to death a 1-year-old child and wounded the child’s mother and sibling.  On that occasion, he had taken a chopper to confront the female victim.

7.  The defendant has other convictions that involve violence.  They include “assault occasioning actual bodily harm” offence in 2003 as well as a similar offence in 2014.  For those convictions, he was sentenced to terms of imprisonment.

8.  I have been told in mitigation that he was released from his 1982 murder and wounding convictions when he was 63 years old.  I have been told in mitigation that when one year later, through an introduction, he was married to a mainland resident.  In mitigation, it has been said that his wife left him after she obtained her permanent residency in Hong Kong.  When she left him, the defendant felt betrayed and used.

9.  However, I have also been told that despite her moving to a hostel, he wanted to reconcile with his wife.  His only way to find out her whereabouts was to ask those that may know.  Understandably, because of the reasons she had to live in a hostel, her family members refused to tell the defendant of her whereabouts.  Because of that refusal, he vented his fury towards his niece.

10.  The facts of this case are very serious.  The attack upon the victim was premeditated.  The defendant took a chopper to stalk her and wait for her.  The attack was entirely unprovoked.  Moreover, he attacked her from behind.  She stood no chance to defend herself.  His weapon of choice, a chopper, is a very serious weapon that is capable of causing great harm.  Moreover, it is relevant that one of the strikes was to her face area, a very vulnerable part of her body.  Luckily, passer-bys came to help her before he could strike her more than three times.

11.  The defendant is a violent man.  He clearly was undeterred by his previous convictions and term of imprisonment.  He is a menace to certainly his own family.  

12.  As far as sentencing is concerned, there are no guidelines or tariffs for this offence.  Obviously, it is appropriate to consider a lengthy term of imprisonment.  The term of imprisonment would depend upon the facts of each specific case. 

13.  Here I have already outlined the serious facts of this case.  The only good mitigation is the defendant’s plea of guilty.  Mr Ip has said all he can on behalf of the defendant in mitigation.

14.  Defendant, please stand up.  After considering the facts, mitigation, injuries to the victim and the defendant’s plea, I find a starting point of 5 years’ imprisonment appropriate.  The defendant has pleaded guilty and is entitled to a discount of one-third for that plea.  After that discount is applied, the defendant is sentenced to 3 years and 4 months’ imprisonment.